Q&A: The Discussion of Tzimtzum as Meaningless
The Discussion of Tzimtzum as Meaningless
Question
Hello Rabbi,
After studying the book “No Person Rules the Spirit” — as I understand it, your claim is that the entire discussion about tzimtzum as literal / not literal is meaningless, since no conclusions can be drawn from it; these are just words.
On the other hand, afterward you present your own view (the question of divine knowledge and free choice, Torah in the person / in the object, etc.), and there you constantly connect your proofs to the claim that they show, in the best way, the conception of tzimtzum as literal in practice.
Why do you keep making that connection all the time (presumably not relying on it in your arguments, but only connecting them to it), if from your perspective the discussion is meaningless to begin with?
Answer
No. The discussion is very meaningful, and it has one clear conclusion and no other: tzimtzum is literal. The thesis that tzimtzum is not literal is meaningless verbiage — not the discussion.
Discussion on Answer
One of the strangest responses I’ve ever come across
Of course tzimtzum is not literal.
Anyone who claims otherwise is basically doing so only in order to allow for his own existence. Because if there is no literal tzimtzum, then he has no place.
To say that there was a literal tzimtzum means that something changed. But nothing can change. Only some thing can change. But for there to be some thing, there has to be a world. And since He is not in the world, then He is not some thing. Meaning, He cannot change. Meaning, there is no literal tzimtzum.
And everything is an illusion.